If you are implementing Lync users that don't have voicemail you might be forgetting about the caller experience when a Lync client or phone is not registered. Have you thought about what the caller will experience when no IP phone or Lync client is registered? (or if they have portable WIFI phone and it is powered off?)

When a Lync endpoint is registered and that Lync user is called things will work as you expect: the call will ring for the length of time defined in the “Call Forwarding” dialog (up to 60 seconds) and then fail.

Where it gets more confusing and inconsistent for the caller is when the Lync user in question has a DID and external/PSTN users are calling the Lync user directly. If the Lync user has no IP phone/Lync client registered the caller can get various messages depending on their own telco:

The number you have reached is not in service. This is a recording (SIP trunk provider)

sorry, this mobile number is not available at this time. (mobile

this number is no longer connected

busy

etc. (in other words, a very inconsistent and confusing caller experience)

So this brings up the point that every Lync user needs to have a destination on no answer even if there is no voicemail (voicemail is effectively a global destination on no answer) for this user.

What are several options?

setup the Lync user(s) to forward to a Response Group (RGS will need an extension# or DID to configure this in Lync client call forwarding settings) that says something like “Sorry, no one is available at this time.” and then disconnects (you can set this up centrally using SEFAUtil)

Notes

with this method, if there is no voicmail and no client registered the call will be answered immediately by the “message” RGS

Cons

if call forwarding is enabled for this user they could change call forwarding to nothing and forget to set it back reintroducing the problem

if they have a snom UC Edition phone forward and clear forward, the forward on no answer is cleared

If you disable call forwarding using a Voice Policy obviously user can no longer forward to distination *they* want to forward it to and they may be confused by fact that Lync client still presents forwarding options (see: Click Here)

another possible option: have SBC/Gateway reroute call on message from Lync

cons:

only calls going through sbc/gateway will be rerouted

MSPL script

I did not sit down and write an MSPL script, but this could be quite elegant. If someone has such a script, I’d be glad to post it/link here.

This update enables administrators to provide support for the *0 Dual Tone Multi Frequency (DTMF) command in a public switched telephone network (PSTN) dial-in conference in a Microsoft Lync Server 2013 environment. After the update is installed, a PSTN caller is able to be transferred to an operator number that the administrator defines.

“AOL is pleased to offer Microsoft Lync customers the opportunity to continue their current federation with AIM and establish new federations if needed. For the first time, we are enabling companies with the ability to establish a direct relationship with AOL to provision and manage their connectivity to the AIM network. This will also allow you to have direct and immediate access to AIM technical support engineers who can quickly identify and resolve any AIM-related issues, thus making the transition to AOL is seamless with no disruption to your company and users.

It is interesting the AOL notes they are offering support from “a dedicated team of enterprise engineers…” and “federation with other companies currently connected to the AIM network”

“Our customers receive technical support from a dedicated team of enterprise engineers. In addition, AOL will soon offer other optional services that will extend the reach of federation with AIM to include federation with other companies currently connected to the AIM network.

Does this mean that AOL is aiming (no pun intended!) to become a Lync/UC federation exchange? Will AIM avoid fading into the sunset by becoming relevant again via some enterprise federation exchange service?

Does this indicate that Microsoft is the party not interested in continuing the relationship with their existing PIC service?

Followers

About Me

Matthew M. Landis has various industry certifications: Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, Microsoft Certified Database Administrator, Microsoft Office Certified Expert, Microsoft Certified Dynamics, Network+ and A+.
In 1995 Matt started Landis Computer which has been providing IT services to small businesses for 14 years and is now a 11 person Microsoft Gold Certified Partner. Matt has over 14 years of field experience implementing Windows Server, Microsoft & Dynamics ERP solutions in small business environments.
Matt is very active in the Windows based IP PBX community: He was a 3CX Valued Professional from 2008-2010 and has co-authored a book on Windows communication software "3CX IP PBX Tutorial". He is pbxnsip Certified, he has contributed thousands of posts to the 3CX community forum and he writes the monthly Windows PBX Report e-newsletter for VARS and administrators. His company, Landis Computer, was the first company in the USA to be designated a 3CX Premium Partner.
When not working and when a chance affords Matt likes to travel internationally with his wife Rosalyn and is very involved in his church.